Josh wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:48 pm
We run into trouble here because she asserts that not fighting for the political changes she wants automatically makes me a racist.
Could you please provide a quote - with a link - where she says anything like that?
I think asking for a source for this is disingenuous boot. Do you really think Nikole Hannah-Jones does not espouse mainstream CRT orthodoxy on this topic?
Wait, what? That's a link to a page she did not write, and you ask me whether I really think she doesn't agree with it.
The things I have quoted show her trying hard not to divide people up into black-and-white categories of "good" versus "evil". It's quite possible that there are other things elsewhere that come across quite differently, I have only recently started reading things related to CRT, mostly because of MennoNet. But if you have useful quotes, I may not have read them.
Given the amount of disinformation flying around, I don't think it's disingenuous to ask people to provide quotes to illustrate their claims. Not what you or I think Nikole Hannah-Jones would espouse, but what she actually says.
nett wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 3:04 pmPretty sure declaring sovereign autonomous zones is a crime in the USA.
Is it? Are you sure? What statute is violated when someone "declares" an autonomous zone? If I declare my house to be an autonomous zone will I get arrested?
nett wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 3:04 pmAlso what exactly were the crimes at the capital? How much damage was there? How much loss of life compared to the BLM protests?
Although there was great national outrage at the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol by a mob of President Donald Trump’s supporters, nearly half of those charged so far in federal court probably will not face any jail time if they are convicted because they are charged only with misdemeanors, a Washington Post analysis shows.
About 44 percent of those accused in federal court as of Monday — 181 of 411 defendants — are charged solely with low-level crimes, primarily trespassing or disorderly conduct on restricted grounds, which typically don’t result in a jail or prison sentence for first-time offenders. Most of the Jan. 6 defendants have no serious criminal records.
The riot “looked awful. It was awful,” said Jay Town, former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, who is not involved in the cases. “But the criminal penalties associated with most of the offenses will not likely result in lengthy prison terms, especially if these individuals plead guilty and cooperate. And that’s how our system is supposed to work.”
. . .
For defendants charged in the estimated 139 assaults on police officers, the law sets a 20-year maximum if the offender used a weapon or inflicted bodily injury. George Tanios and Julian Khater, accused of assaulting Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick with Mace or pepper spray, face such a charge. Sicknick suffered two strokes and died the next day of natural causes, officials have said, and the defendants are not alleged to have caused his death.
But even if both a weapon and bodily injury are considered, the sentencing guidelines call for a range of about 6½ to 8 years on that charge for a first offender, which drops to about 5 to 6½ years if the defendant pleads guilty and “accepts responsibility.” Defense lawyers typically seek other reductions in the guidelines to lower the final range even further, while prosecutors sometimes seek enhancements to raise the range.
Could you please provide a quote - with a link - where she says anything like that?
I think asking for a source for this is disingenuous boot. Do you really think Nikole Hannah-Jones does not espouse mainstream CRT orthodoxy on this topic?
Wait, what? That's a link to a page she did not write, and you ask me whether I really think she doesn't agree with it.
The things I have quoted show her trying hard not to divide people up into black-and-white categories of "good" versus "evil". It's quite possible that there are other things elsewhere that come across quite differently, I have only recently started reading things related to CRT, mostly because of MennoNet. But if you have useful quotes, I may not have read them.
Given the amount of disinformation flying around, I don't think it's disingenuous to ask people to provide quotes to illustrate their claims. Not what you or I think Nikole Hannah-Jones would espouse, but what she actually says.
I provided direct quotes from NH-J. What she actually says.
Does any serious person think NH-J does not espouse mainstream CRT? You don’t ask me to find quotes and evidence that the Pope is Catholic.
Josh wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 3:26 pm
I am, however, pointing out that Nikole Hannah-Jones promotes violence in the form of smashing windows and burning down buildings. If we were talking about a right wing figure who also advocated such violence, I’d point that out, too.
I'm still waiting for that quote. I like to start with "is it true" before getting too upset. Here's the quote I saw:
"I think we need to be really careful with our language. Yes, it is disturbing to see property being destroyed. It is disturbing to see people taking property from stores, but these are things," Hannah-Jones said. "Violence is when an agent of the state kneels on a man's neck until all of the life is leached out of his body. Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence."
"Using that same language to describe those two things ... it's not moral to do that," she added.
I don't think that promotes violence. It doesn't exactly condemn it either, not in that quote - she goes only as far as to say "it is disturbing to see property being destroyed" - but her main point is that killing people is at a different level than vandalism. She also says this:
Despite numerous comments by people asking to post my address or burn or destroy my house, the Daily Caller is encouraging this by repeatedly reposting this story that falsely claims I am defending looting and actual violence.
So she, at least, claims that she is not defending looting or actual violence. Does anyone know of a place where she speaks to this in more depth?
Josh wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 3:31 pm
I provided direct quotes from NH-J. What she actually says.
Actually, it was more like this: Josh says "pumpkins are squirrels" and "bananas eat cheese". Without providing a link to anything Josh said that actually contains those statements. To me, it's best to reserve quotation marks for things people actually said.
Quote please? With a link? Some place where she encourages people to smash windows and loot, as you claim?
nett wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 3:23 pm
What? you didn't address Josh's assertions.
Ken, do you just google and paste the first thing that comes in defense of your position? I'm noticing that you tend to write very little of your own opinion, and just paste whatever you can find, and then claim the facts back you up.
If so, you should know, I (and I suspect others) are far more interested in personal, thought out responses, than what Jeff Bezo's propaganda machine generates.
If your opinions are solely based on what you read in the Wapo, or some other useless, bought and paid for organization, then maybe you should reconsider them.
Josh asserted that the 1/6 defendants are being held without bail. I provided evidence that only 53 out of the over 500 charged are even being held (with or without bail), and that the percentage of 1/6 defendants being held is far lower than in other typical Federal prosecutions. What percentage of those currently being held are being held without bail? I don't know. Apparently Josh doesn't either. But it is a tiny percentage as this fact check article suggests: https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/veri ... dfcc3a9519
Facts matter.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Josh wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 3:42 pm
“Destroying property is not violence”.
Bootstrap, do you agree with this statement?
Trolling, Josh? The obvious answer is this: Some definitions of violence include only violence directed toward people, others include property damage. Neither is good. Murder is worse than vandalism. I think I have said something like that more than once.
Here's the question you have been avoiding, in one form or another, for several pages now. I have to assume that she never said what you claim. If she did, I suspect you would have provided the quote by now. If I'm wrong, could you please provide it now?
Josh wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 3:26 pm
I am, however, pointing out that Nikole Hannah-Jones promotes violence in the form of smashing windows and burning down buildings. If we were talking about a right wing figure who also advocated such violence, I’d point that out, too.
I'm still waiting for that quote. I like to start with "is it true" before getting too upset. Here's the quote I saw:
"I think we need to be really careful with our language. Yes, it is disturbing to see property being destroyed. It is disturbing to see people taking property from stores, but these are things," Hannah-Jones said. "Violence is when an agent of the state kneels on a man's neck until all of the life is leached out of his body. Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence."
"Using that same language to describe those two things ... it's not moral to do that," she added.
I don't think that promotes violence. It doesn't exactly condemn it either, not in that quote - she goes only as far as to say "it is disturbing to see property being destroyed" - but her main point is that killing people is at a different level than vandalism. She also says this:
Despite numerous comments by people asking to post my address or burn or destroy my house, the Daily Caller is encouraging this by repeatedly reposting this story that falsely claims I am defending looting and actual violence.
So she, at least, claims that she is not defending looting or actual violence. Does anyone know of a place where she speaks to this in more depth?
You think her quote doesn’t promote violence. I think her quote does. (Burning down buildings, smashing windows, and looting does result in people getting hurt or killed.)
Maybe you and I should agree to disagree. If you think damaging property is OK, let’s agree to disagree and not keep arguing about it further. But we won’t have any common ground to talk about things like Critical Theory.